Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Martell Spy

U.S. Politics: Hey! Teachers! Leave Them Kids Alone

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

Well she's not running for speaker.  I think 28 year old Latina socialists absolutely have a place in the Democratic party.  If socialists aren't represented amongst the ranks of Democrats, why should we expect socialists to vote Democratic? 

My fear is that socialists are basically all congregated in places that the Democrats already win (New England, California, New York), and that far left-wing candidates simply do nothing to entice middle ground, undecided voters who don't like Trump.

 

Hopefully this serves as an opportunity, and a nationally electable candidate can replace Crowley's leadership in the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I'm kind of curious to hear how you think chemical imbalances in the brain should be handled, if not chemically.  These are symptoms of something one can't just 'overcome', and insinuating that mental illness can is part of the reason there is still a stigma around it; where people don't talk about it or seek help because they feel they should 'overcome' it and it's only that they are weak that they can't.  For some of those people that thought process ends in them taking their own life.

You're putting words in my mouth. You seem to think that by "overcome" I mean sheer force of willpower, I didn't say that. The ultimate aim for all diseases is to treat the cause and eliminate them. Using chemicals that only address symptoms is not that, and should not be seen or accepted as the end point of therapy. What's annoying is that there is not enough research going in to finding ways to fix what's going on and the pharma and health system seem to largely be content with long term symptomatic management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reasoning is weak. 28-year-old freshman congresswoman is not going to be running for Speaker or Minority/Majority Leader, Whip, or deputy. She represents the district better than middle aged white guy who lives in D.C. and she sure as fuck doesn't need to be a nationally electable candidate.

And even if she did need to be that, so what? Your precious middle ground, undecided Trump enablers already spurn centrists. National elections is about turning out the base, not the mythical casual voter. Liberals are frothing at the goddamn mouth about the state of the country and the direction it is heading, why would they turn out for more centrism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sperry said:

My fear is that socialists are basically all congregated in places that the Democrats already win (New England, California, New York), and that far left-wing candidates simply do nothing to entice middle ground, undecided voters who don't like Trump.

 

Hopefully this serves as an opportunity, and a nationally electable candidate can replace Crowley's leadership in the party.

Socialists are a small part of the Democratic party, and this is the first incumbent Democrat in Congress to lose a primary since 2014.  Don't make this into something it's not.  By all accounts, Crowley fell asleep at the switch and assumed he'd coast to reelection.  Complacency is never good, and I'm happy to give Democrats a wake up call that they need to make sure they stay in touch with their districts. 

EDIT: Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I'm kind of curious to hear how you think chemical imbalances in the brain should be handled, if not chemically.  These are symptoms of something one can't just 'overcome', and insinuating that mental illness can is part of the reason there is still a stigma around it; where people don't talk about it or seek help because they feel they should 'overcome' it and it's only that they are weak that they can't.  For some of those people that thought process ends in them taking their own life.

This is all good and true but not really addressing the gist of Anti-Targ's post, which is that big pharma focuses too much (because it has monetary incentive to do so) on symptomatic care of chronic conditions, rather than funding curative research. As a type 1 diabetic, this is something that I feel pretty personally and is a major issue with our health care industry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You're putting words in my mouth. You seem to think that by "overcome" I mean sheer force of willpower, I didn't say that. The ultimate aim for all diseases is to treat the cause and eliminate them. Using chemicals that only address symptoms is not that, and should not be seen or accepted as the end point of therapy. What's annoying is that there is not enough research going in to finding ways to fix what's going on and the pharma and health system seem to largely be content with long term symptomatic management.

What are anxiety and depression if not the symptoms that define them?  These are mental health issues caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, not 'diseases' needing a cure.  There is no 'overcoming' these and wishing for some sort of 'cure' when one doesn't exist is not super helpful advice.

But we're getting off topic here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

This is all good and true but not really addressing the gist of Anti-Targ's post, which is that big pharma focuses too much (because it has monetary incentive to do so) on symptomatic care of chronic conditions, rather than funding curative research. As a type 1 diabetic, this is something that I feel pretty personally and is a major issue with our health care industry. 

It was surrounding mental health though and how cannabis has shown to help mental health.  Can we agree that mental health is different than diabetes and other chronic illnesses?  I agree with the gist of the argument in the vast majority of cases, just not mental health, which is where the context was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[mod] Stick to the topic please: your opinions on mental health treatment can be taken to another thread. [/mod]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frog Eater said:

The message from the GOP in coming months is that the left is "unhinged". 

Here is a GOP advertisement, using the left's own words against them. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFRHX6glTSM

You want to make people sympathize with the Trump administration? Then keep screaming at his cabinet members in restaurants, keep screaming NAZI and BIGOT every time someone supports his presidency. The left has become the party of chicken little. When everything is racist, or the end of the world, nothing is.

Blah... The GOP would be able to make that kind of video even if most people were doing their best to be "civil" to Trump and trumpists. Besides, most of the people in that video seem to be actors or comedians rather than actual politicians running for office. And I'd say it's a good thing that some Democrats at least take an aggressive role in the next campaigns. Beyond the political strategy of having both "civil" and "uncivil" candidates to appeal to most potential voters, that I believe is sound, there's also a moral duty to express outrage.

And the problem with your specific message is that Trump and many -if not most- his supporters objectively are racists and bigots. Being civil is one thing, but if one wants to be credible politically one must still have some respect for the truth and call a spade a spade. You can't separate the families of immigrants and still pretend you're just a bit xenophobic, even if one were to ignore everything that's been said and done before that.

And it's not about the end of the world, it's about American national identity, the end of "America" as it was described for quite some time now (at least a few decades). Kids throughout the world learn about "America" as a "land of immigrants and opportunity." Trump has destroyed that, and aims to burry the pieces that're left. This is objective, cold fact.

For the Democrats I don't think it's about civility and more about attitude. One can express outrage and describe trumpism in a calm and professional manner, so as to show both moral rectitude and political ability. Most candidates should be able to succinctly explain what's wrong with trumpism, why it redefines America, and what's at stake for the future of the country/nation. But although most should do it calmly, they'll still have to be explicit. That is their role and duty.

But actors and comedians? They can say whatever the f*** they want, the US is supposed to be "a free country," right? If the GOP wants to play that game, the Democrats could make a comparable video that'd be hours long. Damn, in fact the video would probably be way too long for electoral purposes.
All these accusations leveled at "the left" are just meant to hide just how much better the Democrats would be for the US right now. All the Democrats need to do is explain why they'd be so much better for the US. You'll always have about 20% of people voting for Trump at least, but f*** these people anyway.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sperry said:

Replacing party leadership with radicals is not a good sign for the party.

Democratic Party leadership is old. And its platform could always use more socialism, and with re-educating the populace so they can learn that most of the programs everyone loves, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and others, are socialistic.

And to me, the most exciting part of her campaign was her refusal to take money from Wall Streets or PACs. I want big money out of politics, and she showed that it could be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

And the evidence that civility is a big issue for these voters is...?

2016. Loads of people were turned off by the tone of the race. Trump sank into the mud and Hillary followed him. If you want to nominate another candidate who will do the same, you’re nominating a loser.

Quote

Again, why is it not possible for the Democratic nominee to contrast themselves with Trump's boorish behaviour by, for example, not bragging about sexual assaults they've committed? Or not mocking disabled reporters? Or not praising Nazis?

You can do that, and at the same time undo all those advantages by nominating a firebrand liberal, which seems to be what the base wants. If you do that and the economy is good, you’ll lose.

Quote

So, no. You have no polls showing this is an issue. You just assume it is. And you need to reflect on why that is, and what underlies that: the framing through which you view politics. Because let's be honest - Hillary Clinton was the definition of civil, but it didn't seem to win over those same 100,000 voters.

Do you have any polls showing otherwise? Because I haven’t seen any in either direction, so yes, I will assume, based on a decade of campaign experience, that nominating people who will be civil is the way to go.

An no, Hillary was not the definition of civil. That basket of deplorables comment will haunt her for the rest of her life.

Quote

There's a difference between what Maxine Waters said and 'jumping into the sewer with Trump'. This is a false equivalence.

Of course there is, but it’s following him down the path he wants to lead you. Don’t do it. It’s a loser for Democrats, because Republicans don’t care if their guy does it while Democrats do. There’s a reason why liberals loved Michele Obama’s “go high” comment. Go the opposite way at your own peril.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Mrs. Obama made that comment to a very different Democrat audience.

Ask the Carthaginians where the road of constant appeasement leads.

It hasn’t even been two years since she gave her speech. Have we changed that much in such a short amount of time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

It hasn’t even been two years since she gave her speech. Have we changed that much in such a short amount of time?

Yes.

The damage done since is irreparable, the only thing left to do is give us our hollow champions until mass suicide becomes fashionable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Yes.

The damage done since is irreparable, the only thing left to do is give us our hollow champions until mass suicide becomes fashionable. 

Yeah, I refuse to believe that, because if that’s really the case, it’s time to move en masse to California and then summarily vote to secede from the Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither the NY Times nor the public radio station with which it is closely associated covered Ocasio-Cortez's campaign at all.  I'm not sure the NY Times even knew she existed until today.  The public station's prime time program that cover local issues and events and especially politics and elections didn't have her on, though they gave time to just about every other primary candidate of whichever party.  They invited Crowley, but he didn't bother, and it was said it was so unlikely he would be beaten that -- well, that was that.

In my anecdotal, personal experience, the very thing the Dems really really really need are young latinas and latinx candidates, and Haitian candidates and Mexican American candidates and African American candidates, particularly female ones.  Everywhere I go in the world, and particularly YES! in NYC, they are the ones who work the hardest, the longest and get the most actually done.  The young and youngish Puerto Rican women are the ones who have been most effective, the earliest and the longest, in helping Puerto Rico since the hurricane.  White old guys like Crowley just sit around and blowhard -- and maybe sexually harass.

And why in the world should not her district have as representative someone who is like them, right down to being a hard working young woman blazing with energy and filled with young, fresh ideas?  That's who she is representing.  And folks, do not forget THESE are the people whose social security and other taxes are going to pay for YOUR social security and Medicare.  Getting rid of all the immigrants means you all are going to have a health careless and penniless old age -- and moreover they are also the force of the health care and home care industries. 

In any case the Dem party is in a state of terror and bewilderment -- and per usual, doesn't know what to do, so insists doing nothing is the best and only move -- other than stomping down and repressing candidates like Ocasio-Cortez because they're such a threat to their comfy leather lounge chairs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Yeah, I refuse to believe that, because if that’s really the case, it’s time to move en masse to California and then summarily vote to secede from the Union.

You can't leave the Union.

And you literally just linked the kneecapping of Union financial operandi (spare me, Latin Grammar Nazis).

You have the SCOTUS openly declaring that being mean to poor widdle weligious man is grounds for dismissal of your case if he's white and Christian but flagrantly racist and hateful remarks about brown Muslims need to be ignored in context of a ridiculous 'security' endeavor.

You have a literal state run news organization feeding directly from the Orange One's twitter.

You have SCOTUS championing voter suppression and defending Gerrymandering.

The courts are stuffed with the youngest, most rabid anti-liberals Cocaine Mitch could drag out from the sewers.

Democrats are so afraid of the Republican base that they refuse to speak of impeaching the literal traitor to the nation in the WH.

There are actual concentration camps in the country.

Environmental protection has been shattered.

The wealth inequality will become even more staggering over the next ten years as that tax bill starts to require a squeeze on somebody.

The U.S. is entering a trade war with our allies.

Iran is going to pursue nuclear ambitions again.

And I'm tired of listing shit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. This is why I want a constitutional amendment to remove the imposter from the court and immediately invalidate all decisions to which he was a part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Yup. This is why I want a constitutional amendment to remove the imposter from the court and immediately invalidate all decisions to which he was a part.

I'd call this a fantasy, but it's beyond even the most drug addled mind's ability to conjure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×